Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Military Psychology logoLink to Military Psychology
. 2020 Nov 23;32(6):432–440. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2020.1803725

Deployment-related coping strategies in military couples: Associations with relationship satisfaction

Sarah T Giff a,✉, Keith D Renshaw a, Sarah P Carter b, Lauren C Paige a
PMCID: PMC10013329  PMID: 38536280

ABSTRACT

Military deployments are known to be stressful for both military service members (SMs) and their romantic partners. Little is known about how coping strategies used during deployment may relate to one’s own and one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction following deployment. This project investigated the retrospective report of how 154 SMs and their romantic partners coped with deployment-related stress, using previously established coping constructs of problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping. Examination of relative associations of coping strategies and mental health symptoms with SMs’ and partners’ relationship satisfaction showed that partners’ emotion-focused coping was positively related to both SMs’ and partners’ relationship satisfaction, whereas partners’ avoidance was negatively related to both their own and SMs’ relationship satisfaction. Results highlight the importance of partner coping within military couples and point to potential strategies for coping with deployment that are associated with enhanced relationship functioning after deployment.

KEYWORDS: Couples, coping, military, stress, relationship satisfaction

What is the public significance of this article?—This study investigated how service members and romantic partners coped with deployment-related stress, and how their coping related to relationship satisfaction after the deployment. Our results suggest that, especially when taking into account the mental health of service members and partners, the coping strategies used by service members’ partners may be of particular importance for relationship satisfaction in military couples. Partners’ use of avoidance during deployment was related to lower relationship satisfaction for both partners, whereas partners’ use of emotion-focused coping (positive reappraisal, self-control, and seeking support) showed positive links with both their own and service members’ relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that supporting partners in practicing healthy coping strategies while service members are deployed may be important for the overall couple relationship health.

Introduction

Military deployment and its aftermath can be challenging for romantic couples (Pincus, House, Christenson, & Adler, 2001). Prior to deployment, service members (SMs) and partners navigate spending time together while emotionally and practically preparing to separate. During deployment, both partners endure stress related to maintaining the relationship while separated, SMs endure work-related stressors that can include life-threatening experiences, and at-home partners often cope with taking full responsibility of the household and caretaking for any children (Wheeler & Torres Stone, 2010) and worry about SMs’ safety. Following deployment, partners and SMs must re-negotiate household roles and responsibilities and adjust to any physical or psychological injuries sustained by the SM (review by Yablonsky, Barbero, & Richardson, 2016), and couples often report issues with emotional and physical intimacy (Baptist et al., 2011). All of these types of stressors are unsurprisingly associated with relationship and psychological distress for SMs and their partners (Gewirtz, Polusny, DeGarmo, Khaylis, & Erbes, 2010; Knobloch & Theiss, 2011).

Based on the extent of deployment-related stressors that SMs and their families face, it is important to understand the ways that individuals cope with such stressors. Evaluations of coping with stressors in this population have revealed small- to medium-sized associations between coping strategies and psychological distress in both SMs (e.g., Riolli & Savicki, 2010; Sharkansky et al., 2000) and partners (Blow et al., 2017; Dimiceli, Stainhardt, & Smith, 2010). Many studies have categorized coping based on the nature of engagement with the stressor, focusing on approach vs. avoidance coping (e.g., Roth & Cohen, 1986). Although this dichotomy initially seems clear-cut, researchers have identified that the “approach” category may be too broad and could be further broken down based on whether an individual is trying to change a stressor (problem-focused coping) or manage one’s own emotional reaction to the stressor (emotion-focused coping; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, some researchers have used three categories of avoidance, emotion-focused, and problem-focused coping. This three-part conceptualization of coping may be particularly helpful in contexts like deployment, where the stressor is not something that can be changed through active problem-solving.

Avoidance coping is related to less healthy outcomes for SMs, with small to medium effects (Blow et al., 2017; Riolli & Savicki, 2010; Romero, Riggs, Raiche, McGuffin, & Captari, 2020), whereas approach-based coping is generally associated with positive outcomes for SMs (Boden, Bonn-Miller, Vujanovic, & Drescher, 2012; Sharkansky et al., 2000). More specific evaluations of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies for SMs have yielded mixed findings, with some evidence that both emotion- and problem-focused strategies have small associations with better mental health (Riolli & Savicki, 2010), and other evidence of small associations with better outcomes for problem-focused coping only (Whealin et al., 2020). Relatively less research has been conducted with partners of SMs. Dimiceli et al. (2010) found that partners’ reported use of problem-focused coping strategies was related to decreased depression symptoms. Other studies have focused primarily on identifying types of coping utilized by partners, rather than associations of coping approaches with partner outcomes (e.g., Blank, Adams, Kittelson, Connors, & Padden, 2012; Lapp et al., 2010; Rossetto, 2015; Werner & Shannon, 2012).

Moreover, very limited research has evaluated the links of individual coping strategies of SMs and partners with relationship satisfaction after deployment. Relationship satisfaction is associated with physical health (Burman & Margolin, 1992), general emotional functioning (Davila & Bradbury, 1998), better mental health following a deployment (Vest, Cercone Heavey, Homish, & Homish, 2017), more active treatment-seeking and better response to treatment when problems exist (Evans, Cowlishaw, Forbes, Parslow, & Lewis, 2010; Meis, Barry, Kehle, Erbes, & Polusny, 2010), and more effective parenting behaviors (Giff, Renshaw, & Allen, 2019). Moreover, family functioning is a key factor in the retention behaviors of military service members (e.g., Campbell, Luchman, & Khun, 2017). Therefore, relationship functioning is critical to the health and well-being of SMs and their families, and thus, to the overall health of the armed forces. However, we identified only one study of coping (focused on pre-deployment levels of overall avoidant or active coping) and relationship satisfaction, which revealed that partners’ pre-deployment levels of avoidance coping were negatively associated with their own report of dyadic adjustment after deployments ended (Blow et al., 2017).

Our primary aim was to evaluate the links of deployment-related coping with post-deployment relationship satisfaction in military couples. We evaluated these links in SMs and partners simultaneously, with attention to both actor and partner associations, to gain a fuller comprehension of how coping strategies overlapped with these constructs in both partners in a couple. We separated emotion-focused coping from problem-focused coping, yielding three overall approaches: problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance. Finally, given the clear links between emotional distress and relationship satisfaction, we sought to tease apart the relative contributions of SMs’ and partners’ coping and SMs’ and partners’ psychological distress to their relationship satisfaction.

Method

Participants

Participants were 154 Utah National Guard and Reserve (NG/R) service members (SMs) and 151 of their romantic partners (N = 305 total). The mean age of SMs was 34.34 years (SD = 8.32), and the mean age of their partners was 32.22 (SD = 8.09). All couples were in heterosexual relationships; the majority of the SMs were male (98%), the majority of partners were female (98%), and the sample was primarily non-Hispanic White (91%). The two branches represented in the sample were the Army (75%) and the Air Force (25%). SMs had been deployed to Iraq (76.6%), Afghanistan (7.1%), other Middle East areas (9.1%), and non-Middle East areas (e.g., Nicaragua, Guam, Japan, etc.; 7.1%). All SMs reported being deployed between 2001 and 2008 at least once, and SMs reported that their most recent deployments had lasted between 2 weeks and 17 months (M = 8.78 months, SD = 3.64 months). On average, SMs reported returning from deployment 8.73 months (SD = 13.89) prior to participating in the study. Of the 124 service members who provided information regarding their unit, the majority (57.3%) were in artillery units, with other participants engaged in military intelligence (8.1%), special forces (7.3%), medical (3.2%), or other types of units (24.2%).

Of the 154 couples, 148 (98%) were married, with an average marriage length of 9.71 years (SD = 7.78), and 125 couples reported having children in the home. For the couples raising children, the number of children in the home ranged from 1 to 11, and couples with children had an average of 3.02 (SD = 1.79) children. The average reported annual household income per couple was 61,618 USD (SD = $23,238). Regarding education, 53.29% of SMs and 60% of partners reported their highest level of education was between “some high school” and “some college credits.” An associate’s or bachelor’s degree was the highest level of education attained by 35.5% of SMs and 35.1% of partners, and 11.18% of SMs and 3.9% of partners reported completing a master’s degree or higher. Regarding partners’ employment, just over half (51.94%) of partners reported being employed outside the home, 21.42% reported being unemployed, 20.78% reported staying at home, and 2.6% of partners were full-time students.

Measures

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988) is a self-report inventory created to assess overall relationship satisfaction. The RAS contains seven items that assess an individual’s satisfaction with their relationship on a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) and produces a range of scores from 7 to 35. In previous studies, the instrument has demonstrated good internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and it correlates well with other commonly used measures of marital satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998; Renshaw, McKnight, Caska, & Blais, 2011). In the present study, it demonstrated strong internal consistency in SMs (α =.94) and partners (α = .91).

Ways of Coping Questionnaire – Revised

The Ways of Coping Questionnaire – Revised (WOC-R; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) is a 66-item, self-report questionnaire assessing what methods respondents typically use to cope with problems. Responses range from 0 (not used) to 3 (used a great deal). Both SMs and partners were instructed to respond to the WOC-R in relation to dealing with any difficulties they may have encountered as a result of the SMs’ most recent deployment. This measure has been used to assess coping in various populations and types of stress, and factor structures have varied across populations and stressors. Although some researchers have recommended conducting sample-specific factor analyses when using this measure (Parker, Endler, & Bagby, 1993; Tennen & Herzberger, 1984), our sample size was not sufficient to support this approach. Instead, we used an approach of prior researchers (e.g., Elgar et al., 2003) that mapped onto our questions of interest, with a problem-focused coping subscale (16 items; range 0–48), an emotion-focused subscale (20 items; range 0–60), and an avoidance subscale (14 items; range 0–42). The internal consistencies of these three subscales were adequate in our sample for SMs (problem-focused coping α = .87; emotion-focused coping α = .84; avoidance coping α = .80) and partners (problem-focused coping α = .77; emotion-focused coping α = .78; avoidance coping α = .73).

PTSD Checklist – Military Version

The PTSD Checklist – Military Version (PCL-M; Weathers, Litz, Herman, Huska, & Keane, 1993) is a 17-item, self-report measure assessing distress from PTSD symptoms related to stressful military experiences. Each of the 17 items corresponds to the 17 PTSD symptoms in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fourth Edition – Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychological Association [APA], 2000). Respondents indicate how distressing each symptom has been in the past month, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Symptom severity is represented by the total sum of item scores. The PCL-M has demonstrated high test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity across numerous studies (Wilkins, Lang, & Norman, 2011). In the present study, this scale was administered only to SMs and demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .93). At the time of its creation, Weathers et al. (1993) recommended a cutoff score of 50 as an estimate of a PTSD diagnosis; however, Bliese et al. (2008) have more recently found that a score of 35 or greater provides optimal sensitivity and specificity for estimating a PTSD diagnosis using this measure.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a 42-item, self-report scale assessing negative emotional states of depression, anxiety, and stress. The DASS was used in this study to provide a measure of overall distress in partners. Respondents indicate how much each item applied to them within the past week, on a scale from 0 (Did not apply to me at all) to 3 (Applied to me very much or most of the time). The present study summed all items across the subscales of depression, anxiety, and stress to provide one total score for psychological distress. In the present sample, internal consistency was excellent (α = .96).

Procedure

All procedures for this study were approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and the Utah NG Judge Advocate General. Recruitment for the present study was conducted as part of a larger study investigating relationships of military couples. Recruitment occurred at the beginning of eight optional, weekend-long, post-deployment workshops focused on providing education about various marital issues, conducted between September 2007 and August 2008. The WOC-R measure was added to the study after the third workshop; thus, participants from the first three workshops were not included in the present data. At the beginning of each session, researchers made announcements about data collection for the present study. Measurement packets were then made available throughout the weekend workshops. Of the 490 couples who attended the eight workshops, 271 (55%) SMs and 258 (53%) partners opted to participate in the data collection. Prior to participation, all participants provided written, informed consent. Questionnaires took each participant between 60 and 90 minutes to complete. Participants were given the option to either submit their finished packages at the end of the workshop or return the packages via postage provided to them. Nearly all participants completed packets and returned them before the workshop ended. All participants were compensated 10 USD for their participation upon return of the completed materials ($20 per couple). For the current study, only data from couples who had experienced a deployment were selected from the broader sample of couples who received the WOC-R measure, resulting in 154 SMs and 151 partners in total.

Data analysis

Using SPSS version 26 (IBM, 2019), we examined bivariate correlations among the SMs’ and partners’ WOC-R subscales, SM PCL-M, partner DASS, and RAS for SMs and partners. We additionally examined paired t-tests to identify any differences in SM and partner levels of each type of coping.

Next, we used IBM SPSS Amos 26 (Arbuckle, 2019) software to conduct two actor-partner interdependence models (APIM). The first APIM modeled SM and partner coping strategies as exogenous variables (with covariances among all SM coping strategies and among all partner coping strategies) predicting both partners’ marital satisfaction (RAS), which were modeled as endogenous variables with covarying error terms. Structural paths were specified from all exogenous variables to both RAS scores (to fully estimate actor and partner effects). In the second APIM, we added SM PTSD and partner distress (DASS) as additional predictors of both partners’ marital satisfaction, to determine whether associations of coping with satisfaction remained after accounting for psychological distress. SM PTSD and partner DASS were modeled as covarying exogenous variables, SM PTSD was covaried with all SM coping strategies, and partner DASS was covaried with all partner coping strategies. Overall model fit was estimated with the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990; values ≥ .95 indicating good fit) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Kline, 2005; values < .08 indicating good fit). We additionally tested our models with time since deployment as an exogenous variable with paths to SM RAS and partner RAS. This variable did not change any of the patterns of results so it was not retained in our final models.

Of note, we also examined whether the length of time since deployment impacted our results by evaluating correlations of time since deployment with all primary variables, and by adding time since deployment as a predictor in our APIMs. No significant correlations were detected, and there was no change in the pattern of results in either APIM; thus, we report results without this variable included. Finally, our levels of missing data were low, ranging from 1.9% (for SM WOC subscales) to 9.1% (for partner DASS). Missing data were addressed using full information maximum likelihood in estimating solutions for the APIMs.

Results

Descriptives and correlations

Means and intercorrelations of all primary variables are shown in Table 1. SMs’ average level of PTSD symptoms was slightly below the cutoff suggesting possible PTSD, indicating a moderate range of symptoms. Partners reported relatively low average distress levels, but there was a relatively high standard deviation, indicating wide variability within the sample. Both SMs and partners reported relatively high levels of relationship satisfaction. On average, there were no significant differences in SMs’ and partners’ reported levels of emotion-focused coping (paired-t[146] = −1.95, p = .053) or avoidance coping (paired-t[144] = −.366, p = .715). However, SMs reported significantly higher levels of problem-focused coping compared to partners (paired-t[146] = 5.06, p = .000).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Primary Variables

  N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SM Problem-focused 151 23.75 9.10                  
2. SM Emotion-focused 151 28.41 9.99 .76***                
3. SM Avoidance 151 15.09 7.33 .45*** .54***              
4. Partner Problem-focused 148 19.14 7.47 .08 .12 −.02            
5. Partner Emotion- focused 148 30.61 8.66 .13 .10 .05 .65***          
6. Partner Avoidance 146 15.45 5.56 .12 .08 .19* .38*** .36***        
7. SM PTSD 149 29.52 12.04 .09 .14 .51*** .01 −.08 .14      
8. Partner DASS 138 20.14 19.24 .10 .03 .07 .17* .13 .41*** .09    
9. SM RAS 149 31.01 4.34 −.01 −.05 −.25** .07 .12 −.26** −.36*** −.35***  
10. Partner RAS 145 30.11 4.90 −.04 −.11 −.18* .08 .16 −.25** −.26** −.43*** .59***
Open in a new tab

SM = Service Member; PCL-M = PTSD Check List – Military Version; DASS = Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scales.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p ≤ .001.

All of the SM coping strategies were significantly, positively correlated with one another, with medium to large effects, and all partner coping strategies were significantly, positively associated with one another. The only significant correlation across partner coping approaches was between SM avoidance coping and partner avoidance coping.

SM PTSD was significantly, positively correlated with SM avoidance, and significantly negatively correlated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. Partner distress was significantly, positively correlated with partner problem-focused coping and partner avoidance, and significantly, negatively correlated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. In addition, both SM and partner avoidance were significantly negatively correlated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. No other coping was significantly associated with relationship satisfaction at the bivariate level.

Path analysis

The first model (see Figure 1) with only coping strategies predicting marital satisfaction showed adequate fit (χ2[9] = 17.036, p = .048; RMSEA = 0.076; CFI = 0.979). SM avoidance was significantly, negatively associated with SM relationship satisfaction, and partner avoidance was significantly, negatively associated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. In addition, partner emotion-focused coping was significantly, positively associated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. No other significant effects were detected.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Actor-partner interdependence model of coping strategies as predictors of relationship satisfaction. (Standardized weights shown, all partner coping correlated with other partner coping and all SM coping correlated with other SM coping)

Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.

The second model (see Figure 2), which added SM PTSD and partner DASS, also showed adequate model fit (χ2[15] = 23.646, p = .071; RMSEA = 0.061; CFI = 0.982). In this model, SM PTSD and partner distress were each significantly, negatively associated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. With these variables controlled, SM avoidance was no longer significantly related to SM relationship satisfaction, but partner emotion-focused coping and avoidance maintained significant associations with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Actor-partner interdependence model of coping strategies and mental health as predictors of relationship satisfaction. (Standardized weights, all SM variables correlated with one another, all partner variables correlated with one another, and partner distress and partner PTSD correlated)

Note. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001.

Discussion

This study aimed to address a gap in the current understanding of how the ways in which SMs and partners cope with deployment-related stressors are associated with relationship satisfaction in both members of military couples. There were a number of associations among SMs’ and partners’ coping strategies, indices of psychological distress, and relationship satisfaction. In line with the vast literature supporting links between psychological distress and relationship functioning, both SMs’ PTSD symptoms and partners’ psychological distress were negatively linked with relationship satisfaction in both individuals. With regard to coping, SM and partner avoidance were associated with greater psychological distress and lower relationship satisfaction. The associations of avoidance with poorer relationship satisfaction held even in multivariate analyses and, for partners, even when controlling for psychological symptoms. These findings align with the general consensus that avoidance-based coping is frequently associated with negative outcomes both for individuals and partners (e.g., Blow et al., 2017).

Partner emotion-focused coping was not related to relationship satisfaction at the bivariate level; however, it was significantly, positively associated with both partner and SM relationship satisfaction at the multivariate level, even when accounting for SM PTSD and partner distress. Few prior studies in this population have evaluated emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping, and avoidance coping as separate constructs, and we identified no studies that did so in the context of both SMs and partners. Our findings demonstrate that, in the context of something like a military deployment, emotion-focused strategies such as seeking social support, engaging in positive re-appraisal, and emotion regulation may have potential benefits, particularly for partners. It is noteworthy that this type of coping by partners was associated with higher relationship satisfaction in both partners and SMs after deployment. Given our methodology, we cannot determine whether engaging in this type of coping helped promote healthier relationship functioning after deployments ended, or whether partners who were in more satisfying relationships were simply more likely to engage in (or report engaging in) this type of coping. This limitation notwithstanding, our findings suggest that partners’ emotion-focused coping strategies may have a positive role to play in the lives of military couples.

In contrast to prior research (e.g., Aldwin, 1994), partners’ reports of problem-focused coping in relation to deployment stressors were positively associated with partner distress at the bivariate level in our sample. Although confronting issues is often seen as healthy ways to cope with stress, it is possible that partners who used more problem-focused coping found themselves attempting to actively change problems over which they had little control, which could be associated with more post-deployment distress. It is also possible that those experiencing greater distress were exerting greater coping overall. Given the retrospective nature of our data collection, further replication of this finding would be needed before drawing any firm conclusions from it.

In addition to the specific associations among coping strategies and relationship satisfaction, there are two broader patterns worth noting. First, partner reports of two of three coping strategies during deployment were associated with relationship satisfaction in both partners and SMs, even when accounting for both SM and partner psychological symptoms. In contrast, SM reports of coping yielded only a single association with SMs’ own relationship satisfaction, and this association was not maintained when accounting for mental health factors. This pattern highlights the important role that partners play in overall marital health for both themselves and SMs. Second, although assessing how mental health related to relationship satisfaction was not a primary goal of this article, SM PTSD and partner distress were both significantly associated with both SM and partner relationship satisfaction. Often, research on military couples focuses predominantly on SM PTSD. Our findings suggest that partners’ psychological distress is as important to both SMs and partner relationship satisfaction as are the SMs’ own symptoms. The totality of these findings highlights the critical importance of attending to partner variables when evaluating the overall functioning of military couples and families. In addition to the multitude of associations of relationship functioning with important psychological variables in SMs (e.g., Evans et al., 2010; Meis et al., 2010; Vest et al., 2017), spousal satisfaction and support to remain in the military are key predictors of retention behavior (e.g., Campbell et al., 2017). A greater understanding of the variables that influence relationship functioning in both SMs and their partners can help inform efforts to address some of the added stressors that such couples face, which can, in turn, increase morale and retention across the military.

It is important to note that our data are cross-sectional; thus, no conclusions about causality can be drawn. It is possible that greater individual and relationship distress leads to retrospective reporting of certain types of coping or vice versa – or the associations may be bidirectional. Furthermore, our measure of coping was retrospective, with all possible deployment-related stressors lumped together. Prior coping researchers have identified that retrospective self-reports are an “adequate though imperfect” method of assessing coping (Todd, Tennen, Carney, Armeli, & Affleck, 2004, p. 317), and daily reports would be ideal to capture coping in relation to specific types of stressors in the midst of the stressor. Beyond these limitations, our sample was comprised primarily of white, heterosexual, married couples of male SMs and female partners who presented to a relationship-strengthening weekend workshop, and all of these qualities may introduce bias into our sample and limit generalizability. The current sample is fairly representative of the Utah NG/R overall, but only somewhat representative of the broader U.S. NG. Our findings might not generalize to couples with female SMs, who may experience greater marital dissatisfaction throughout the cycle of deployment (Southwell & Wadsworth, 2016), or to members from non-White populations, who may differ from White individuals in terms of coping strategies (Brantley, O’Hea, Jones, & Mehan, 2002).

These limitations notwithstanding, our findings shed light on potentially important considerations with regard to coping in military couples facing deployments. Although some prior research has suggested that emotion-focused coping is a less healthy way to cope with stress, emotion-focused coping (that does not incorporate avoidance strategies) may actually be very important for partners of deployed SMs to practice. Clinical work with SMs and their partners may focus on teaching adaptive emotion-focused coping skills and facilitating specific types of emotion-focused coping, such as social support groups for at-home partners, during deployments. In addition, our findings add to the larger literature showing that avoidance coping during deployment is harmful for relationship satisfaction, for both SMs and partners (Blow et al., 2017). As such, prevention and intervention programs could also focus on providing psychoeducation about the potential harm to both individual well-being and relationship satisfaction of relying on avoidance to cope with deployment-related stressors. Future research that accounts for the amount and precise nature of stress experienced by each person during the deployment, and other factors like presence and number of children, and prior history of/experience with deployments could further illuminate our findings. Such research should consider coping from a dyadic perspective, including both individual coping strategies and shared, couple strategies (Bodenmann, 2005).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Camila S. Rodrigues for her assistance with the data collection and management involved in this study, as well as the Utah National Guard Chaplains and the Utah National Guard/Reserve service members and families for their support of this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association (APA) . 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2019). Amos (Version 26.0) [Computer Program]. Armonk, NY: IBM SPSS. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baptist, J. A., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Garrett, K., Nelson Goff, B. S., Collum, J., Gamble, P., & Wick, S. (2011). Military marriages: The aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) deployments. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33, 199–214. doi: 10.1007/s10591-011-9162-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blank, C., Adams, L. A., Kittelson, B., Connors, R. A., & Padden, D. L. (2012). Coping behaviors used by Army wives during deployment separation and their perceived effectiveness. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 24, 660–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2012.00766.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bliese, P. D., Wright, K. M., Adler, A. B., Cabrera, O., Castro, C. A., & Hoge, C. W. (2008). Validating the primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen and the posttraumatic stress disorder checklist with soldiers returning from combat. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 272–281. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blow, A. J., Bowles, R. P., Farero, A., Subramaniam, S., Lappan, S., Nichols, E., … Guty, D. (2017). Couples coping through deployment: Findings from a sample of national guard families. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73, 1753–1767. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boden, M. T., Bonn-Miller, M. O., Vujanovic, A. A., & Drescher, K. D. (2012). A prospective investigation of changes in avoidant and active coping and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms among military veteran. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34, 433–439. doi: 10.1007/s10862-012-9293-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In Revenson T. A., Kayser K., & Bodenmann G. (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 33–49). Washington, DC: APA. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brantley, P. J., O’Hea, E. L., Jones, G., & Mehan, D. J. (2002). The influence of income level and ethnicity on coping strategies. Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioral Assessment, 24, 39–45. doi: 10.1023/A:1014001208005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 39–63. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Campbell, A., Luchman, J., & Khun, J. (2017). Spousal support to stay as a predictor of actual retention behavior: A logistic regression analysis (Note no. 2017-009). Defense Research, Surveys, and Statistics Center. Retrieved from https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Surveys/Military-Spouse-Survey-Note.pdf [Google Scholar]
  14. Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (1998). Psychopathology and the marital dyad. In L’Abate L. (Ed.), Handbook of family psychopathology (pp. 127–157). New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dimiceli, E. E., Stainhardt, M. A., & Smith, S. E. (2010). Stressful experiences, coping strategies, and predictors of health-related outcomes among wives of deployed military servicemen. Armed Forces & Society, 36, 351–373. doi: 10.1177/0095327X08324765 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Elgar, F. J., Arlett, C., & Groves, R. (2003). Stress, coping, and behavioural problems among rural and urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 574–585. doi: 10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00057-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Evans, L., Cowlishaw, S., Forbes, D., Parslow, R., & Lewis, V. (2010). Longitudinal analyses of family functioning in veterans and their partners across treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 611–622. doi: 10.1037/a0020457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150–170. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gewirtz, A. H., Polusny, M. A., DeGarmo, D. S., Khaylis, A., & Erbes, C. R. (2010). Posttraumatic stress symptoms among National Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq: Associations with parenting behaviors and couple adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 599–610. doi: 10.1037/a0020571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Giff, S. T., Renshaw, K. D., & Allen, E. A. (2019). Post-deployment parenting in military couples: Associations with service members’ PTSD symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 33, 166–175. doi: 10.1037/fam0000477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98. doi: 10.2307/352430 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142. doi: 10.1177/0265407598151009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. IBM Corp . (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac OS. Armonk, NY: IBM. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  25. Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 470–478. doi: 10.1037/a0024063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lapp, C. A., Taft, L. B., Tollefson, T., Hoepner, A., Moore, K., & Divyak, K. (2010). Stress and coping on the home front: Guard and reserve spouses searching for a new normal. Journal of Family Nursing, 16, 45–67. doi: 10.1177/1074840709357347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In Gentry W. D. (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282–325). New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Meis, L. A., Barry, R. A., Kehle, S. M., Erbes, C. R., & Polusny, M. A. (2010). Relationship adjustment, PTSD symptoms, and treatment utilization among coupled National Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 560–567. doi: 10.1037/a0020925 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Parker, J. D., Endler, N. S., & Bagby, R. M. (1993). If it changes, it might be unstable: Examining the factor structure of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 5, 361–368. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.361 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Pincus, S. H., House, R., Christenson, J., & Adler, L. (2001). The emotional cycle of deployment: A military family perspective. Retrieved from http://www.hooah4health.com/deployment/familymatters/emotionalcycle2.htm
  32. Renshaw, K. D., McKnight, P., Caska, C. M., & Blais, R. K. (2011). The utility of the relationship assessment scale in multiple types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 435–447. doi: 10.1177/0265407510377850 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. (2010). Coping effectiveness and coping diversity under traumatic stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 17, 97–113. doi: 10.1037/a0018041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Romero, D. H., Riggs, S. A., Raiche, E., McGuffin, J., & Captari, L. E. (2020). Attachment, coping, and psychological symptoms among military veterans and active duty personnel. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 33, 326–341. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020.1723008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Rossetto, K. R. (2015). Developing conceptual definitions and theoretical models of coping in military families during deployment. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 249–268. doi: 10.1080/15267431.2015.1043737 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813–819. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sharkansky, E. J., King, D. W., King, L. A., Wolfe, J., Erickson, D. J., & Stokes, L. R. (2000). Coping with Gulf War combat stress: Mediating and moderating effects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 188–197. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.109.2.188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Southwell, K. H., & Wadsworth, S. M. M. (2016). The many faces of military families: Unique features of the lives of female service members. Military Medicine, 181, 70–79. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tennen, H., & Herzberger, S. (1984). Ways of coping scale. In Keyser D. J. & Sweetland R. C. (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 3, pp. 686–697). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. [Google Scholar]
  40. Todd, M., Tennen, H., Carney, M. A., Armeli, S., & Affleck, G. (2004). Do we know how we cope? Relating daily coping reports to global and time-limited retrospective assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 310–319. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Vest, B. M., Cercone Heavey, S., Homish, D. L., & Homish, G. G. (2017). Marital satisfaction, family support, and pre-deployment resiliency factors related to mental health outcomes for reserve and national guard soldiers. Military Behavioral Health, 5, 313–323. doi: 10.1080/21635781.2017.1343694 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Herman, D. S., Huska, J. A., & Keane, T. M. (1993, October). The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX. [Google Scholar]
  43. Werner, T. L., & Shannon, C. S. (2012). Doing more with less: Women’s leisure during their partners’ military deployment. Leisure Sciences, 35, 63–80. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2013.739897 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Whealin, J. M., Pitts, B., Tsai, J., Rivera, C., Fogle, B. M., Southwick, S. M., & Pietrzak, R. H. (2020). Dynamic interplay between PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic growth in older military veterans. Journal of Affective Disorders, 269, 185–191 doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wheeler, A. R., & Torres Stone, R. A. (2010). Exploring stress and coping strategies among National Guard spouses during times of deployment: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 36, 545–557. doi: 10.1177/0095327X09344066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilkins, K. C., Lang, A. J., & Norman, S. B. (2011). Synthesis of the psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist (PCL) military, civilian, and specific versions. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 596–606. doi: 10.1002/da.20837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yablonsky, A. M., Barbero, E. D., & Richardson, J. W. (2016). Hard is normal: Military families’ transitions within the process of deployment. Research in Nursing & Health, 39, 42–56. doi: 10.1002/nur.21701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Military Psychology are provided here courtesy of Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association and Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES